26 comments:

Ilion: Arguments are more important to me than labels. I am a lot more sure that I don't like the way the Bush Administration applied "conservatism" than I am that any liberal plan in particular will work out well.

Is the bank bailout conservative or liberal? Are warrantless wiretaps conservative or liberal? Is the unitary executive conservative or liberal? Is the use of waterboarding conservative or liberal. Is pre-emptive war in Iraq conservative or liberal? Is pro-life conservative or liberal?

What interested me was that these people called themselves theocrats. These people have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any real political power, of course.

What a silly ... and "liberal" ... thing to say. And you don't really meant it; no one who whinges about "labels" really means it -- humans cannot make it through a single day without using "labels" and "stereotypes." That's just a fact of life.

VR: "I am a lot more sure that I don't like the way the Bush Administration applied "conservatism" than I am that any liberal plan in particular will work out well."

Well, join the club! Do you really imagine that any conservative wanted Bush in the first place (any more than we wanted McCain)? He's *not* a conservative (any more than McCain is).

Haven't I mentioned that I voted *against* him in 2000?

But, no "liberal" plan can ever work out well, really. "Liberal" schemes *depend* upon the non-liberal assumption that a significant proportion of the population will ignore the plans and find a way around them.

VR: "... These people have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any real political power, of course."

Exactly (and assuming the site isn't some anti-theists just yanking everyone's chains). So, why waste any of your time on them? Why even post the link to their page in the first place? It's not like they're even an interesting topic to discuss! So, why waste the time?

============VR: "Is the bank bailout conservative or liberal? Are warrantless wiretaps conservative or liberal? Is the unitary executive conservative or liberal? Is the use of waterboarding conservative or liberal. Is pre-emptive war in Iraq conservative or liberal? Is pro-life conservative or liberal?"

Please, you surely already know the answers.

"Is the bank bailout conservative or liberal?"

It increases the scope of the Federal government over the lives of Americans, and over our society and economy. AND, it gives "liberals" talking-points about fat-cats whihc they'll use in the next election cycle. Therefore, it's "liberal."

"Are warrantless wiretaps conservative or liberal?"

Do they increase, or diminish, the scope of the Federal government over the lives of Americans? Do they increase, or diminish, the security and protection of American lives and property? Some do, some don't (to both parts of both questions)

Warrantless wiretaps of Americans are "liberal." Warrantless wiretaps of foreigners are "conservative." Opposition to warrantless wiretaps of foreigners is "liberal."

I rather doubt that; I expect you've been hoodwinked again -- you really *do* need to read more widely than today's Democratic Party talking-points.

For instance, Wikipedia (mind you, *I* take anything on Wiki with a grain of salt) says -- Unitary executive theory "The phrase "unitary executive" was discussed in the Constitutional Convention, referring mainly to having a single individual fill the office of President, as proposed in the Virginia Plan, rather than have several executives or an executive council, as proposed in the New Jersey Plan and as promoted by Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason; and that the Constitutional Convention debates show that the Founders' primary concern behind whether to have a single executive or an executive council was to choose the one that would ensure that the executive would be relatively weaker and more easily restrained by the legislature; that those who argued for a unitary executive advanced the argument because they considered that the best way to limit the executive’s power and keep it subordinate to the legislature, in opposition to arguments that a plural executive would support the executive’s independence; and the term "unitary executive" was thereby bound up with the intention of keeping executive power checked and restrained."

But, even if the term were invented by Cheney's lawyers, do you not comprehend that a "unitary executive" is *exactly* what the Constitution calls for?

Ilíon: It increases the scope of the Federal government over the lives of Americans, and over our society and economy. AND, it gives "liberals" talking-points about fat-cats whihc they'll use in the next election cycle. Therefore, it's "liberal."

ALSO, the bailout serves very nicely to cover the asses of important menbers of the Party of the Ass who are very personally responsible for the current economic mess. And it serves nicely to paper over the fact that is was "liberal" policies which fueled the housing bubble.

But I have noticed you take an interest in trying to justify certain laws based on secular reasoning. Yet I noticed you think objective morality is unlikely without God. I would like to know what you (and others here) think about this:

1) At least some laws are properly based on morality. (I would say all laws are based on morality but I don't need to claim that here)

2) All morality is based on God and religion.

3) Therefore some laws are properly based on God and religion.

Ok I haven't made it into a tight logical argument. Perhaps I could make it tight with some work. But I am not really interested in trying to make a deductive proof but instead I'd be interested in your general thoughts.

Let me give you a specific example of where I think the "separation of church and state" mantra breaks down.

I think murder is wrong for religious reasons. I think people are made in the image of God, life is a sacred gift from God that we have no business taking away without strong justification etc. I do not believe anything various secularists have said regarding why we should not murder. If I am truthful I can not honestly say "murder should be outlawed because it interferes with our autonomy." Basically I'm pretty sure I would be a moral nihilist if I did not believe in God so not secular argument is likely to work.

So if I am on the state legislature can I pass a law against murder? I mean the only reasons I think murder is wrong are clearly religious ones. So does this mean I am violating the mantra of "separation of church and state"?

Joe: "... Basically I'm pretty sure I would be a moral nihilist if I did not believe in God so not secular argument is likely to work."

I'm confident that you don't mean that literally, and certainly not in the way that various atheists/secularists will triumphantly accuse you when the argument you have in mind presses their (actually nihilist) position too closely.

I'm confident that what you really mean is that did you not believe in God and understand the fact that all morality is and must be grounded in the reality of God, you'd recognize that moral nihilism is the only possible moral/honest option on the matter ... but that you'd personally be "dishonest" and continue to behave as though morality were real.

Yeah it’s something like that. I actually think it’s theoretically possible that morality can exist without God. However I think it would be unlikely. Of course I do believe in God so the whole scenario is counterfactual which means it tricky ground we are treading on. I do think it’s impossible we could reliably know what morality would dictate.

Good. Now that I've ... or so I hope ... shown you a better way to say what you really meant to say, perhaps next time you happen to be talking with someone why denies the objective reality of morality, you'll be able to so see (and avoid) his attempt to stear you into committing yourself to an indefensible position that you didn't really meant to stake out in the first place.

Joe: "I actually think it’s theoretically possible that morality can exist without God. However I think it would be unlikely. Of course I do believe in God ..."

But it *isn't* theoretically possible for morality to exist without God. Reason/logic shows us that the posited posibility is false, therefore it cannot be theoretically possible for it to be true.

Also, were it indeed theoretically possible for morality to exist without God, then there exists something "above" (or both "logically and ontologically prior to") God. Which is to say, were this true, then God is not God; rather, that this supposed ontologically prior thing must be said to be God. However, this supposed ontologically prior thing is a concept, and concepts do not (and cannot) exist absent some mind to entertain the concept.

Therefore, to assert that morality can theoretically exist without God is both to deny that God exists and that morality is real. It (the logical working out of the core assertions of Biblical religion) all hangs together ... deny part and one denies all.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term 'theoretical.' Theoretical does not mean something like "someone is able to imagine thus-and-such, or at least say words to the effect of thus-and-such." Though the majority of people use the word that way, they are misusing it to mean something far closer to what "hypothetical" means.

For example, some 'atheists' are (or perhaps *were* ... and I haven't seen any doing it for a number of years since I mocked the trope) fond of likening belief in God to belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. However, as I have pointed out, the phrase "invisible pink" is an oxymoron, a contradiction-in-terms (for "pink" contradicts "invisible"). That someone can imagine (or, at least, say the words) an "invisible pink unicorn" does not make the existence of any invisible pink unicorn even a theoretical possibility.

Joe: "... Of course I do believe in God so the whole scenario is counterfactual which means it tricky ground we are treading on. ..."

Not at all (on both the "counterfactual" part and the "tricky ground" part).

The knowledge that morality does not (and cannot) exist apart from God does not rest on anyone's belief in God. The knowledge rests upon logical reasoning.

Joe: "... I do think it’s impossible we could reliably know what morality would dictate."

Were this actually true, then there is no point in trying to understand what morality is. Nor in censuring those individuals (and collectives) which behave immorally.

If we cannot *know* that murder is wrong/immoral, then it is not moral of us to in any way even attempt to punish the murders amongst us.

Russ Schaefer Landau I believe addressed your points squarely in his book whatever happened to good and evil.

He is a much better writer than I am so I would first recommend that you get a copy of the book. It’s really quite good at addressing several different issues that often come up. It’s easy to read and is intended for popular reading. He puts the strongest arguments in the simplest terms. I certainly think it is one of the more handy books I have.

But to the extent you don't have easy access to the book I think we argued about this before in this thread:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=8099769500685353440

It was about the Craig Antony debate.

I think I addressed most of your comments. Let me ask you: do you think the laws of physics can exist without God?

No-thing can exist without God -- *all* things have their existence in God.

That some persons imagine that "the laws of physics" (or any other thing) can exist without God does not make it so. That some persons *need* to believe that "the laws of physics" created themselves (i.e. popped into existence without a cause from absolute nothingness) does not make it so.

To assert that "the laws of physics" can exist without God is exactly to assert that "the laws of physics" created themselves from nothingness.

I did not mean argue in the sense of squabbling. I meant argue in the sense of one of us put forth the reasons they thought x the other the reasons they thought not x.

Anyway, I tend to look at all laws as "if then" type claims. The "if" must be true for the law to apply, but they can be true and exist even without that. But anyway if I'm wrong, I don't think there is anything logically inconsistent with thinking the laws of physics sprang into existence when physical things came into existence. If physical things always existed then the laws governing them always existed.

Joe: "... But anyway if I'm wrong, I don't think there is anything logically inconsistent with thinking the laws of physics sprang into existence when physical things came into existence. If physical things always existed then the laws governing them always existed."

The idea that "the laws of physics" could exist independently of God is not self-evidently illogical, for the idea does not contradict itself, and yet it is illogical. It is, in fact, absurd, for treating the idea as though it were true leads inevitably to absurdities. Therefore, since the absurdities follow directly from the statement/claim that "the laws of physics exist independently of God," we know that the absurdity is contained within the statement itself; we know that the statement is false.

Rather than type it out again, please allow me to direct your attention to an explanation of the above which I posted yesterday on the "Raving Theist" (formerly "Raving Atheist") blog, in the thread: More than Matter at response #177.

"For instance, either:a) the physical world exists because it was/is intended to existb) the physical world does not exist because it was/is intended to exist."

Ok here I think you should be clearer. I think you are trying to say either its true that A)the physical world exists because it was/is intended to exist. Or “Not A” is true. At first since the sentence is compound I was thinking there would be at least four possibilities. But you are ruling out the possibility that the physical world does not exist. So I think what you mean to say for B is “the physical world does exist but it was not intended.”

I'm not that up on arguments in that area of mind body dualism. I think you make some valid points that at the very least many atheists would need to reconsider what they understands themselves to "believe" and indeed perhaps what beliefs are - if they are materialists.

I would have to think through what you say more carefully before I comment on it.

I can see how what you say ties in to this discussion but it is really a larger argument.

By the way I was saying "morals can theoretically exist without God" you were saying "not - morals can theoretically exist without God"

Joe: "Ok here I think you should be clearer. I think you are trying to say either its true that A)the physical world exists because it was/is intended to exist. Or “Not A” is true."

How can I be more clear: and that is just what I said. There is no ambiguity at all in what I said, so how can I possibly make it more clear?

Joe: "At first since the sentence is compound I was thinking there would be at least four possibilities. But you are ruling out the possibility that the physical world does not exist."

No, once one accepts the axiom -- for we cannot prove it, any more than we can prove that we ourselves exist -- that the physical world exists, then one does not deal with the possibility that it does not exist. And really, what have any of us to do with the man who denies that the physical world exists? And, unless he's stark raving mad, does he not continue to *behave* as though the physical world exists? Other than his assertions, how could we ever know that he denies that the physical world exists?

Joe: "So I think what you mean to say for B is “the physical world does exist but it was not intended.”"

I mean exactly what I wrote. I had already clearly stated that I *start* with the axiom/assumption that the physical world exists. I had already stated that I am asking a question pertinent to that assumption; there is no need to keep re-stating the assumption.

Joe: "I'm not that up on arguments in that area of mind body dualism."

And what does that have to do with anything?

I am not presenting an argument based upon some philosopher's "authority" to assert or deny mind-body dualism; I am presenting an argument accessible to anyone who *wishes* to see for himself that atheism is false; who wishes to see that were atheism true, then it must be the case that many important things about himself which he knows to be true cannot possibly be true.

The point of the argument is to force the issue: no more hiding behind silly slogans: "No one can possibly know whether there exist any gods!" No more pretending that one's own self is real but that God is not: if God is not, then neither are we.

Joe: "... I think you make some valid points that at the very least many atheists would need to reconsider what they understands themselves to "believe" and indeed perhaps what beliefs are - if they are materialists."

What, exactly, is a non-materialist atheist? Is it the person who asserts that: "Nothing at all exists!" Are there any other sorts? What has any rational man to so with such? A non-materialist atheism is going to be even more absurd, more immediately so, that the garden variety of atheism.

SO: the 'atheists' who wish to continue to deny that God exists and the 'agnostics' who wish to continue to deny that we can know that God exists are going to have to retreat into "woo-woo-ism." This is my problem, how?

As I've pointed out, the question "Exists a (Creator) God?" is a question about the very nature of the reality in which we find ourselves. If the 'atheists' and 'agnostics' wish to retreat into asserting some alternate reality in which we do not find ourselves, rather than simply admiting that God exists and that we can know this truth, then I am willing to let them. Let others chase after them.

But don't worry: very few 'atheists' (or 'agnostics') are going to attend to the argument even to the degree that you have so far. Instead, they will assert that I am: 1) stupid, 2) ignorant, 3) irrational and/or illogical, 4) a liar. Believe me, I've already tried to discuss this with 'atheists' and 'agnostics;' I've already seen the full range of their response: they *will not* admit that the argument is sound and valid, and they cannot show (nor do they try) that it is not.

Joe: "I would have to think through what you say more carefully before I comment on it."

Please continue to do so. That you are not immediately dismissing the argument with "I don't it's possible to either prove or disprove that God exists" (as one Christian I "know" via the internet did) is promising. Frankly, I don't expect many "theists" to be much more attentive to the argument than 'atheists' have been; though perhaps "theists" will not be so nasty about it.

Joe: "I can see how what you say ties in to this discussion but it is really a larger argument."

The argument ties into everything, I suspect. For, as I've explained, the question "Exists a (Creator) God?" is a fundamental question about the very nature of the reality in which we find ourselves.

Joe: "By the way I was saying "morals can theoretically exist without God" you were saying "not - morals can theoretically exist without God""

Indeed. I understood you to be misunderstanding "theoretically," as I explained (and I'm still not sure that you don't). And so I tried to explain why it is *not* theoretically possible that morality can exist without God.

Once again: morality is a concept (perhaps I ought to say that it is a multi-layered concept). As such, morality does not and cannot exist absent a mind which entertains the concept.

Now, if morality is *merely* a concept invented by humans, then it is a self-contradiction, an absurdity, and it is not real. For, a key point of morality is that it is binding upon both the one who asserts it and upon all others: when any man asserts an *ought* then he is either mistaken (or lying) that it is binding upon his listeners or he is stating a truth larger-than-himself. The "authority" behind the asserted *ought* cannot be the man himself, and it cannot even be the entire society or the state, else there really is no *ought* but merely an assertion of power whcih can be overturned by a more powerful assertion of power.

So: morality cannot exist if there is no mind in which it exists, and morality cannot merely exist in human minds -- that is, morality, if it is real, cannot be the invention of *any* contingent being or set of contingent beings. So, if morality does indeed exist, then it *must* have its existence in the mind of the non-contingent Creator of contingent beings.

Why do you think that the up-market 'atheists' always deny the reality of morality (even as they continue to make moral assertions)? It is because they *know* that the reality of morality points directly to the existence of a non-contingent Person who has moral authority to make moral demands of us contingent persons.

Joe: "So I think what you mean to say for B is “the physical world does exist but it was not intended.”"

Ilion:"I mean exactly what I wrote. I had already clearly stated that I *start* with the axiom/assumption that the physical world exists. I had already stated that I am asking a question pertinent to that assumption; there is no need to keep re-stating the assumption."

I'm not saying what you said is incorrect I'm simply telling you why it took me a while to understand what you are saying. Others may not take the time and skip what you have to say.

Ilion:"1)What, exactly, is a non-materialist atheist? 2)Is it the person who asserts that: "Nothing at all exists!" Are there any other sorts? 3)What has any rational man to so with such? 4)A non-materialist atheism is going to be even more absurd, more immediately so, that the garden variety of atheism."

Joe1) It would be someone who does not believe in theism or materialism. 2) Not necessarily and indeed I not know of any that do this. Yes there are other sorts. 3) Like I said I have not really looked into the matter so I can’t say. 4) Perhaps

Here are some websites that talk about materialism and the different varieties:

http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html

Notice at the bottom it discusses whether naturalism implies materialism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Your argument seems to say the atheist must adopt a strong materialism. Maybe you are correct and maybe that is generally accepted as true. But even then I am not sure the materialist couldn’t just say that “sure most peoples understanding of ‘self’ is different than it really is.” Really I’m not sure how they would look at your views here. I’m sympathetic to your view but again I am not really knowledgeable enough in these areas to give it a decent critique.

"Joe: "I would have to think through what you say more carefully before I comment on it."

Ilion"Please continue to do so. That you are not immediately dismissing the argument with "I don't it's possible to either prove or disprove that God exists" (as one Christian I "know" via the internet did) is promising. Frankly, I don't expect many "theists" to be much more attentive to the argument than 'atheists' have been; though perhaps "theists" will not be so nasty about it."

Ok one thing that will be tough though is that it does, I believe deal with a whole new area of philosophy that I am not that familiar with.

Although many people deny it philosophers do make progress. Certain notions are discounted for certain reasons. If they are revived they are revived in a more nuanced way. I have heard an argument similar to yours before. That is if materialism is true then we have no free will. So I would imagine the line of thought has been explored at least to some extent.

I just goggled “materialism and free will” and came up with these sites:

I again tend to think you are correct in the general gist of what you say. But I am not going to be able to really inform you on this at this point. You may want to look at some of the authors and what has been said about this line of thought before. Find out if what you are arguing has been argued before and see the responses to it. If it hasn’t find out how your argument is different than what has been argued before and if it is maybe write out how its different and talk with whoever wrote something close. He or she may be interested in what you have to offer.

I would say one thing though. Try to break down what you are saying into specific premises that you can number and then the conclusion that follows. Look at what you wrote and make sure it follows deductively. Once you do this then you can see how your premises may need to be refined or how they are subtly different than other lines of thought. You will still need some conversational style explanation for some of the premises but you should have the skeleton outline of the premises and the conclusion made explicit. It might be 2 premises and a conclusion or it may be 30 premises and a conclusion. Explicitly writing out the premises can make your argument much more apt to get responses. People can then tell you what premises they do not accept and you can explain why they really should accept them. Or they may claim a gap in the validity of the argument lies somewhere. You can either fill that gap or otherwise respond.

I think what you say makes sense it just needs to be put forth in a more accessible form – assuming you want people to understand and learn from what you have to say. Either way I will continue to think about your argument. I just can’t say how long it will be before I have learned enough to be constructive in addressing it.

Joe: "By the way I was saying "morals can theoretically exist without God" you were saying "not - morals can theoretically exist without God""

Ilion:"Indeed. I understood you to be misunderstanding "theoretically," as I explained (and I'm still not sure that you don't). And so I tried to explain why it is *not* theoretically possible that morality can exist without God.

Once again: morality is a concept (perhaps I ought to say that it is a multi-layered concept). As such, morality does not and cannot exist absent a mind which entertains the concept."

Joe:I'm not so sure here. We conceptualize morality but I'm not sure it doesn't "exist" but for our conceptualization. Moreover even if people were mistaken about right and wrong there actions can still be right and wrong. I think you are putting to much emphasis on morality being dependant on our beliefs about morality.

Ilion:"Now, if morality is *merely* a concept invented by humans, then it is a self-contradiction, an absurdity, and it is not real. For, a key point of morality is that it is binding upon both the one who asserts it and upon all others: when any man asserts an *ought* then he is either mistaken (or lying) that it is binding upon his listeners or he is stating a truth larger-than-himself. The "authority" behind the asserted *ought* cannot be the man himself, and it cannot even be the entire society or the state, else there really is no *ought* but merely an assertion of power which can be overturned by a more powerful assertion of power."

Joe:Here I would just say I agree with you that relativist morality isn't worthy. I would say that if we "make morality up" then we should treat it like other "made up" things - I.e., B.S. I wouldn't however say its dependant on power or authorities etc.

Ilion:

"So: morality cannot exist if there is no mind in which it exists, and morality cannot merely exist in human minds -- that is, morality, if it is real, cannot be the invention of *any* contingent being or set of contingent beings. So, if morality does indeed exist, then it *must* have its existence in the mind of the non-contingent Creator of contingent beings."Joe:Well to the extent I disagree with what you said before I disagree here.

Ilion:"Why do you think that the up-market 'atheists' always deny the reality of morality (even as they continue to make moral assertions)? It is because they *know* that the reality of morality points directly to the existence of a non-contingent Person who has moral authority to make moral demands of us contingent persons."

Joe:Nihilists deny morality for a number of reasons. Richard Joyce is a nihilist and he explains why in his writings. Now I think you ask a good question about what do you do as a nihilist? I have a lot of respect and enjoyed reading, and learned from reading Richard Joyce’s books, but I would like to pursue that line of questioning with him. Why continue to follow moral codes etc. I think his comments in Evolution of morality were quite weak in that regard. (I bet it was thrown in at a request from the publisher) I think it would be an interesting conversation.

Joe: "I'm not saying what you said is incorrect I'm simply telling you why it took me a while to understand what you are saying. Others may not take the time and skip what you have to say."

I'm really at a loss here as to how you could have difficulty understanding this at once:"For instance, either: a) the physical world exists because it was/is intended to existb) the physical world does not exist because it was/is intended to exist.This statement is, of course, a tautology, and it doesn't yet tell us much of anything. ..."

I'm not trying to write for philosophers, I'm trying to write for average people ... while still using clear and precise language. And, wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous of me, seeing that I am no philosopher (or, rather, am a philosopher exactly to the extent that everyone is) and have no training in it, to pretend that I am one by trying to write like one?

Sure, I could have written something like, "let 'E' be the proposition that 'the physical world exists because it was/is intended to exist' and thus we see at once that either 'E' or '~E'." But *who* would pay attention to that? *Who* would understand that and continue engaging the argument?

While it would be nice if philosophers were to attend to this argument, can I really expect that many will? For, after all, if what I am saying is a valid argument, its content has been right in front of their faces for centuries; many of them have and do see the pieces, but so far I haven't found that any have seen how it all ties together. VR, for instance, doesn't appear to me to see that the Argument From Reason doesn't have to be merely an inductive argument, but that approached in the way I am approaching the matter it can be a deductive argument.

Maybe I'm too taken with the insight I had (or imagine I had). But, if no one else engages it and honestly critiques it, how will *I* ever learn that it's not as strong an argument as I believe it to be? I mean, I do look for flaws in my thinking, but we all have difficulty really seeing where we ourselves have made an error of reasoning: I can do only so much in this regard. I've been thinking about this argument for about three years (I don't mean to imply continuously), *I* can't find a problem with it.

The arguments can be presented in a way that popular readers can understand. But there is nothing presumptuous in trying to post your argument in a way that will draw more comments from those who learn and teach philosophy as a profession.

If you have not had any training in basic symbolic logic or critical reasoning then you may not be able to do what I suggest. That is ok. In that case do what you can.

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.